Archive

ShareThis Page
Corbett camp op-ed criticizes AP’s report on education funding gap | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Corbett camp op-ed criticizes AP’s report on education funding gap

Tribune-Review
| Monday, January 5, 2015 11:33 p.m.

Gov. Tom Corbett’s administration Monday issued the final salvo in the education funding debate that helped topple him.

Acting Secretary of Education Carolyn Dumaresq issued an op-ed criticizing an Associated Press report that concluded the gap between how much wealthy and poor schools spend per student more than doubled during the Republican’s four-year tenure.

“It’s quite a stretch, if not a misrepresentation, to hold the governor accountable for spending decisions made by each school district,” she said.

The AP’s Pennsylvania editor, Larry Rosenthal, said the news organization stands by its story.

“The Associated Press’ analysis of the school funding gap illuminates an issue of significant importance for Pennsylvanians,” he said. “The story notes education funding comes from various sources, including determinations made in 500 communities and from the state. We stand by the story.”

Critics targeted Corbett for failing to replace $1 billion in federal stimulus funds that had been put toward education. The governor and Legislature control only state funding to public schools, which is $10 billion — a record amount, Dumaresq noted. Still, it accounts for about one-third of the $27.6 billion total spent on schools.

To eliminate the spending gap outlined in the AP report, Dumaresq said, “The state would have to step in and make all spending and taxing decisions.

“I have yet to see a line outside the Department of Education of those willing to cede control of their local school district to the state,” she said. “My parting request is that we stop blaming the loss of the $1 billion in federal money on Governor Corbett and refocus our energy on ensuring that Pennsylvania develops a new education funding formula.”

“It’s an administration leaving office that wants — from their point of view — to get the historical record straight,” said G. Terry Madonna, a pollster and political analyst at Franklin & Marshall College.

A commission the Legislature formed is studying how best to calculate education funding.

Experts on both sides deplore the system but part company quickly on the best way to move forward.

“You cannot separate the issue of a new formula from the dollar issue,” said Ron Cowell, former Democratic legislator and president of the Harrisburg-based Education Policy and Leadership Center.

“A formula that measures the needs of students and districts and drives the state’s obligation is very different from the Legislature arbitrarily coming up with a number.”

Such an approach could cost $3 billion to $4 billion in new revenue, which “just isn’t there,” said James Paul of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Paul supports what he calls “weighted student funding,” which would tie funding to individual students. Factors such as poverty, English as a second language and others would be given extra weight.

Regardless of what the commission determines, the funding formula must be set by the Legislature.

Corbett succinctly summed up the political dilemma to the AP: “So who do I take it away from?”

Donald Gilliland is a Trib Total Media staff writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.